Public Disclosure of Private Facts:A highly offensive disclosure by the defendant
of private facts about the plaintiff.

To prove a prima facie case of public disclosure
of private facts, the plaintiff must prove a highly offensive disclosure
by the defendant of private facts about the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there
was:

(1) No legitimate public interest that was served
by having these private facts disclosed

(2) that the defendant was at fault for making the disclosure, and

(3) that the defendant’s actions were both the actual and proximate
cause of the disclosure and of the harm the plaintiff suffered.

See Melvin
v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285 (1931).

In order for a viable cause of action to arise, the facts that the defendant
discloses must pertain to the plaintiff’s private life. Any facts
that are already known or that are a matter of public record cannot
be the basis of a cause of action.

Thus, for example, if the defendant reveals private
facts about plaintiff that are contained in a last will and testament,
the plaintiff cannot bring a cause of action based on this disclosure
because a will is a public document and thus, anything contained in
it, no matter how private or personal to the plaintiff, is a matter
of public record.

Next, the plaintiff must prove that the disclosure
was of such a nature that would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person. See
Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp., 113 F.2d 806 (2nd Cir. 1940). Thus,
for example, a defendant disclosing that the plaintiff likes to eat
chocolate ice cream before going to bed is not highly offensive. However,
a defendant disclosing that the plaintiff "sleeps around"
would be highly offensive.

Further, the disclosure must involve some measure
of publicity. That is to say, these private facts must be communicated
either to the public, or to enough people that it is likely to reach
the general public. See
Brents v. Morgan, 299 S.W. 967 (Ky. 1927). Thus, for example:

Ed tells his friend Mike that Carol "sleeps
around." Carol will probably not have a viable cause of action.
Although this is highly offensive, Ed’s disclosure to one friend
does not represent a public disclosure. However, if Ed publishes the
fact that Carol sleeps around in the school newspaper, or announces
it over the school intercom system, Carol would have a viable cause
of action because this would represent a public disclosure.

Further, in order for the plaintiff to have a viable
cause of action, he must demonstrate that the information that the defendant
disclosed is not newsworthy. The term “newsworthy” is generally
interpreted to mean “matters that are a legitimate public interest”.
In the event that the defendant published private facts about the plaintiff
that involve a legitimate public interest, the plaintiff will not have
a viable cause of action.

Although the lives of public figures may be generally
considered to be legitimate public interest, there are certain elements
to a public figure’s life that are so private as to be considered
beyond legitimate public interest. Publication of these kinds of facts
is actionable. See
Diaz v. Oakland Tribune, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 3d 118 (1983).

In addition, certain private facts about involuntary
public figures can be disclosed so long as those facts are newsworthy.

Further, facts about someone who was formerly a public
figure but is no longer in the public eye are not actionable so long
as those facts are considered newsworthy.

Finally, as with intrusion upon seclusion, a cause
of action for disclosing private facts requires proof of causation.

As with intrusions, consent is a complete defense
to public disclosure of private facts. Where the plaintiff himself divulges
private information to the defendant, the general rule is that the defendant
will not be liable for disclosing those facts.

However, if the defendant is under a legal obligation not to disclose
those facts, he can be sued for the disclosure.

Unlike defamation, truth is never a defense to a suit for public disclosure
of private facts. See Brisco
v. Reader’s Digest Association, 4 Cal. 3d 529 (1971). The
laws regarding public disclosure of private facts were established to
protect the plaintiff from public embarrassment. That purpose is defeated
when the defendant discloses private facts about the plaintiff, especially
if those facts are true. Thus, truth is not a defense.

Thanks to the constitutional rights of free speech
and freedom of the press, the media enjoys certain privileges in regard
to public disclosure of private facts.

Finally, as far as damages go, the same rule that
applies for intrusions applies here as well.